Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 14:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).

April 26, 2026

April 25, 2026

April 24, 2026

April 23, 2026

April 22, 2026

April 21, 2026

April 20, 2026

April 19, 2026

April 18, 2026

April 17, 2026

April 16, 2026

April 13, 2026

April 12, 2026

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Tenement_house.,_26_Starowiślna_street,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Tenement house, 26 Starowiślna street, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Temporarily oppose because of red category that should be fixed. --Екатерина Борисова 00:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Harlock81 09:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Józefa_Dietla_Street,...._buildings._Kraków..Poland.jpg

  • Nomination Józefa Dietla Street, buildings, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 03:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall good, but central building is blown out. Can you fix it, please? --Екатерина Борисова 02:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Tours_-_Jardin_François_Sicard.jpg

  • Nomination Tours (Indre-et-Loire, France) - François Sicard public garden in late afternoon, with the cathedral towers in the background --Benjism89 05:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Strong contrast. Unnatural towers and upper side of the buildings. In real life, they don’t look like that, nor do they resemble what you see --Lmbuga 12:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what you mean, these buildings do look this way, although late afternoon light makes them warmer. It's indeed a very contrasted scene. I've reduced a bit the contrast, hope you find it better now --Benjism89 16:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful colors and lights. Sharp at normal size. --Sebring12Hrs 06:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Hortus_Haren_(Groningen)_13-12-2025._(actm.)_21.jpg

  • Nomination Hortus Haren. Overview photo of the semi-open part of the hortus.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 05:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Multiple purple fringes on branches, overexposed background. --Екатерина Борисова 01:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise, but overall good enough quality. I think searching through background branches for a hint of purple (which I honestly don't really see) and calling it CA is a bit of pixel peeping --Jakubhal 19:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm surprised at you guys. Much better quality photos are rejected here because of little noise or half degree tilt, while this one with clearly visible issues is going great. Jakubhal, do you really not see CA's on the right side - not somethere in the background, but right here in front? Very strange. I have a feeling that I did something wrong in QI project, and therefore you all vote not for this photo as such, but against my opinion. I hope this feeling is wrong. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've been active in QIC for a very long time and until recently I have not seen images rejected for such minor fringing on thin branches. This is a normal artifact in high-contrast situations and is clearly negligible here. The effect is limited to fine details against the sky and does not impact the overall image quality in any meaningful way. Treating this as a reason for rejection sets an unrealistic standard that is not consistently applied in this project. I vote based solely on the image, not on who comments on it. However, I cannot help but notice that you have been consistently raising this kind of very minor fringing as a decisive issue recently. I believe that this does not reflect how QIC standards are normally applied. Jakubhal 04:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I really think that purple fringes on branches spoil the image no matter how strong/minor they are (here they are visible even in thumbnail size) and I don't think that wishing they weren't in a photo is an unrealistic standard. Maybe I'm too strict about quality, but, actually, the QI project exists in order to choose quality photos, not just pretty ones. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Brest_Hohalia_street_2024-12-25_4092.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:Amsterdam,_Herengracht_2tm10_met_RM1693tm5_IMG_0904_2026-04-06_09.42.jpg

  • Nomination Amsterdam-NL, Herengracht 2 to 10 --Michielverbeek 15:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --JackyM59 17:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp rnough, and the right side is blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Focus is to the houses at Herengracht 2 to 10, not to the right part --Michielverbeek 17:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --

File:2025_Pomnik_św._Jana_Nepomucena_w_Starej_Łomnicy_(7).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Harlock81 21:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Crested_Lark_in_Tal_Chhapar_Sanctuary_November_2025_by_Tisha_Mukherjee_01.jpg

  • Nomination Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) in Tal Chhapar Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. --Tisha Mukherjee 09:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Aciarium 12:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks o.k. to me. --Ermell 15:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Ermell. --Harlock81 21:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Aciarium. Image guidelines state: Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. This is a 24MP camera and this image is only 3.5MP. --E bailey 17:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I don't think this image is downsampled. It was taken with an 800 mm lens, likely from a considerable distance. The relatively small size is probably due to cropping rather than downsampling. That said, my support is only weak, as the final resolution is indeed quite low. Jakubhal 17:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Whether it’s heavy cropping or downsampling, in the end there’s less information for archival preservation. It’s not clear to me that this was downsampled. I’ll adjust my feedback and say that I’m more being critical of the relatively low resolution and level of detail which Aciarum pointed out. Heavy cropping has a disadvantage for the project’s archival purposes. I guess I’m re-opening the 2MP rule for debate. I don’t find this shot “hard to take” and would think it could be achieved with higher resolution. -- E bailey 19:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Harlock81 21:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Path_to_Philopappou_Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Path to Philopappou Hill --Kallerna 07:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Poor lighting. --TheBritinator 09:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the backlight is the idea of the photo... --Kallerna 12:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not reset to "/Nomination" once there is a vote. I assume that the author wishes to challenge the opposing vote so that it should be moved to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe it is a problem in the coding, I just wanted to add a comment. --Kallerna 20:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    •  Comment Vote stricken. You are not supposed to vote for or against your own photos. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me – Julian Lupyan 08:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:48, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Figura_Trójcy_Świętej_w_Kłodzku_(4).jpg

  • Nomination: Holy Trinity statue in Kłodzko 4 --Jacek Halicki 07:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Why nominate 4 photos of same statue? --Kallerna 07:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Please discussion --Jacek Halicki 11:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. No limits. --Lvova 15:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Images are clearly different and there is no limit on subject --Jakubhal 19:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Kallerna: Is it not forbidden to nominate multiple images of the same subject as long as they are different. This is not FP. --Plozessor 04:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Out of 4 nominated pictures, two were almost identical. It is not forbidden to nominate, but IMO it is stupid and also it is not forbidden decline a nomination because of this. -Kallerna 08:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
      • I am strongly against the word 'stupid' as an argument, as far as it is a chance that it can be used mirrored. Lvova 11:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background --Smial 03:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Harlock81 09:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2025_Kłodzko,_ul._Daszyńskiego_8a_(3).jpg

  • Nomination 8a Daszyńskiego Street in Kłodzko 3 by User:Jacek Halicki--Poconaco 06:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Halves of cars are too disturbing. --Екатерина Борисова 02:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Jacek Halicki 01:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: I removed the cars.--Jacek Halicki 08:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Amazing improvement, thank you! I removed my opposing vote. I'm not sure I can support the image instead, but I think it's good now. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support OK Юрий Д.К. 15:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong  Oppose Fake paving. The white car has damaged tyres and rims; the rear axle is bent, and the side profile looks odd around the rear doors too. A crash-damaged car hastily patched up? The chrome trim on the roof of the dark car on the left has come loose and is hanging in mid-air. The AI has clearly messed up there. My very personal opinion: I don’t want to see this sort of thing on Commons. I’ve got nothing against minor touch-ups, nothing against artistic experiments, but I can’t see any artistic intent in this photo. The photo is clearly documentary in nature, and in such cases, large-scale manipulations like this are an absolute no-go. Why would anyone do that? I just don’t get it. I’m too old for this kind of rubbish. Is some stupid QI badge worth more than Wikipedia’s credibility? --Smial 04:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's an analysis! I don't really know much about photographing cars, and I hadn't thought about AI at all. The photo looks spectacular now, but I agree that misleading is not good. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose per Smial, even though I do not know whether the author used AI. This is a very strongly retouched photo that introduced obvious mistakes. The dark line on the pavement in front of the white car is yet another peculiarity, with abrupt changes and some blurry parts. This image should be marked with the template {{Retouched|1=what was done here}} and it is clearly not QI. In fact, reversion to the original version might be even better, though that version may not be QI either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:54, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the roof strip of the removed car that was on the left, now hanging in the air, is also a peculiarity. I agree with the previous reviewers that this is probably a poorly done AI correction Jakubhal 04:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why not restore the original version and just crop the foreground (then the car in the lower right corner will disappear by itself, no need for AI)?--ArildV 07:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Harlock81 09:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)